Comments on: "Anomalous" in Finland

By: Sune

Sune — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:47:50 +0000

Re: Paul #139
Thank you for taking time the to explain the subtleties of the UC posts. I am quite new to this branch of “science” (climate science is a bit too mixed with political interests and green emotions for my particular taste) and it is clear that external auditing, as Steve McIntyre does, is long overdue. I am writing my Ph.d. thesis in an unrelated subject and I will look forward to do some proper statistical analysis on the subject of why US and rest-of-the-world seems to be in such discrepancy trend-wise. US should be large enough to pick up a global warming trend if it is there. Right now I think GISS is picking up high/low network quality. It needs to be investigated at least.

By: KevinUK

KevinUK — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:35:00 +0000

Re: Sune (#134),

“Make a graph of ad-hoc station-network quality (x-axis) and ratio of pos./neg. trends (y). Then you would se that only the low-quality networks substantiate the hypothesis of a global warming trend while high-quality networks will show equally many ups and downs.
”

What a great idea. I look forward to you doing exactly what you’ve suggested and reporting one the results you have obtained back here on this thread. Based on your results I’ll then consider emigrating to whichever temeprate climate country shows the greatest warming trend as a means of mitigating the onset of my arthritis .

KevinUK

By: PaulM

PaulM — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:17:56 +0000

Sune,
UC showed 3 stations that had a similar record to the US – temperatures in the 1930s being similar to the present day. But there are many other stations in many other countries that show the same picture. Go to the GISS station map and click and look for rural stations with 100-year temperature records. You will find a similar picture in Greenland (Angmagsalik, Godthab Nuuk) Iceland (Akureyri, Reykjavik) and Ireland (Valentia), with 1930s temperatures being similar to todays or higher.
If you have time to do a proper statistical survey then that would be interesting.

By: John M

John M — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:15:40 +0000

Re: Sune (#136), Regarding the 60 sites, UC was drawing on a long-running joke. He was referring to a comment Gavin Schmidt has made, which UC further expounded on here.

By: Jean S

Jean S — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:05:31 +0000

Re: Sune (#136), Calm down. It seems to me that you have not understood what UC was saying. In my opinion, your responses are also rather rude and lack respect. You are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

By: Sune

Sune — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:36:55 +0000

Re: #135 The idea of discussions is to arrive at conclusions. You posts lacks preciseness and cannot be answered. Please read my response as I read yours. First you show 3 stations, then you talk about 60. Where is the proof and what are you assumptions? Can you, or can you not, reject the hypothesis that; US and western europe trends are different compared to the rest of the world? I want to see a p-value of a proper statistical tests as I proposed in #134. 1934 is still the warmest in US record. I expect to see a statistical (and verifiable) test in you next response. If not then this is not a scientific, but an emotional, discussion nobody needs. You could of cause also just admit you do not want to make the test. Then I would have to do it my self when time is available. That is certainly fair.

By: UC

UC — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:26:40 +0000

Re: Sune (#134),

I am unsure of what the point is as 3/7000 stations proves nothing in terms of statistical significance.

Nah, 60 stations is enough, so USA represents one face of the hexecontahedron, and Finland another. 2/60 with no trend, 1/60 with a trend (central Europe, quite reliably measured warming there, I think).

By: Sune

Sune — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:28:59 +0000

Re: UC (#40)
You show 3 time-series of temperatures in finland that follows the trend in the US you say. I am unsure of what the point is as 3/7000 stations proves nothing in terms of statistical significance.

Then you talk about CRU and not GISS which was the target of my original question so the data you refer to is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that GISS (not CRU) still claim that US tends (and western europe) have positive and negative trends while the rest of the world nearly exclusively show positive trends only.

What we should be doing is this: Split all station data into two data sets:
1) High quality station data: US plus western-europe
2) Low quality station data: The rest of the world

For each data set compute two numbers:
a) Number of stations reporting a positive trend = Np
b) Number of stations reporting a negative trend = Nn

Then compute:
R1 = Np(1)/Np(2)
R2 = Np(2)/Nn(2)

I will bet that R1 < R2 i.e. that US+europe have mixed trends while the more unreliable stations are biased toward positive trends.

Make a graph of ad-hoc station-network quality (x-axis) and ratio of pos./neg. trends (y). Then you would se that only the low-quality networks substantiate the hypothesis of a global warming trend while high-quality networks will show equally many ups and downs.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:30:04 +0000

A new version of ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/grid/grid_1880_2008.dat.gz was posted on the NOAA website today without explanation or apology.

PS. It appears to be the same version as the one that was deleted last week. Gridcell 329 is the same as before and is still problematic.

By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » but the NOAA anomaly is always high in October.

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:06:42 +0000

[...] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4395 Commenters who threaten anyone while here because they are not smart enough to come up with a better answer will have some due diligence done on them. Foul mouthed lefty posters beware. [...]